BoxRec

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:28**

Rory McCloskey wrote:norton at 5? frazier a little too high.. holmes and rocky too low...

1) Joe Louis
2) Muhammad
3) Jack Johnson
4) Rocky Marciano
5) Jack Dempsey
6) Larry Holmes
7) Joe Frazier
8 ) George Foreman
9) Sonny Liston
10)Ezzard Charles

haha u know if u make the number 8.. then put a ) next to it like i did, you get one of these 8) after you submit it.. i thought it was funny...

frazier beat better guys than marciano did, like your number 2! i think marciano was great but i also think he showed a lack of boxing skills against walcott. for this reason i think you cant put him ahead of a well schooled guy like frazier. but then again, he has that suzy q. im never gunna argue with dempsey in the top 5. what the hell put him at one if you like, he was a legend and my favourite. in fact i think i put him a bit low. might promote him. as for liston, he had great ability but not enbough stability. like tyson he just didnt do enough. in my view he was just another iron mike. a flash in the pan underacheiver who doesnt deserve the credit coz he never stuck around to prove it. a shame, but i guess thats just the game.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:28**

britpack wrote

norton was solid and could have beaten marciano in my view

not only do i think rocky would KO norton, its A HORRIBLE style matchup for norton. norton was at his worst against big punchers. u saw what foreman and shavers did to norton.
marciano would knock out norton inside of 5 rounds.

btw, most people dont even rate norton in their top 20 heavyweights so have fun argueing him at 5th

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:30**

Rory McCloskey wrote:are you thinking of liston? ezzard? tyson?

im sure it is someone else. i dont know what happened there. i always had soemone at number 7. im sure it aint one of them. definitely not tyson. no room for a flash in the pan!

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:32**

i dont think arciano showed a lack of boxing skills against walcott, first of marciano wasnt a boxer, he didnt have boxing skills. he was a slugger/swarmer. he had a different style of fighting then most.

and wlacott is one of the greatest defensive fighters/stylist boxers in history of heavyweight divsiion. a lot of guys would have problems boxing with walcott

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:35**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:britpack wrote
norton was solid and could have beaten marciano in my view
not only do i think rocky would KO norton, its A HORRIBLE style matchup for norton. norton was at his worst against big punchers. u saw what foreman and shavers did to norton.
marciano would knock out norton inside of 5 rounds.

btw, most people dont even rate norton in their top 20 heavyweights so have fun argueing him at 5th

maybe not 5th, but i think apart from the chin he was well schooled and deserves top ten. i dont think marciano was on the same level as foreman and shavers. they rocked ali, and formean even knocked out smoking joe. that show good formean was. i think marciano was a great puncher for his size and he was good in his time. walcott was old and a young one would have taken away that 0. nevertheless he is in the top ten because he overcame, and because he was really very small. really it is more like a pound for pound thing putting small guys like him and dempsey in the list. if your thinking p4p (in the real sense of the word, every pound for every pound) then dempsey jumps to the top 3 easily.

i got no problmes argueing norton at 5 because i think he beats marciano, and i think he beat your number 2, the greatest, muhammad ali. beat him past his prime but beat him nonetheless. just look at how close them fights were to decide how good norton is.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:39**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i dont think arciano showed a lack of boxing skills against walcott, first of marciano wasnt a boxer, he didnt have boxing skills. he was a slugger/swarmer. he had a different style of fighting then most.

and wlacott is one of the greatest defensive fighters/stylist boxers in history of heavyweight divsiion. a lot of guys would have problems boxing with walcott

he didnt have boxing skills! you said it all! a good slugger always loses agains a good boxer. walcott was an old man, and he was a defensive master but he took the mick out of marciano. it proves he really would slug if he faced a higher calibre of fighter like norton, frazier or even lennox lewis. guys like these would know how to tie up a blown up light heavyweight taking advantage of a weak division. in the 50s the division was like it is now. maybe worse. thats why i dont rate marciano that much. i put him there because he had a punch to bail him out (and he did use it to bail out) and because he was a great fighter if you think p4p. he really shouldnt have been fighting those guys but he did and he beat them. marciano also worked wlel on the inside and at cutting fighters off. i still think norton kicks his ass! nrotn was higly underrated. number 10 at the very least

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:44**

wow ur reasoning is very flawed.

britpack wrote

walcott was old and a young one would have taken away that 0

walcott was still in his prime agaisnt marciano, he was coming off two wins over a prime ezzard charles. walcott fought one of his best fights against marciano, walcott didnt even become a contender until he was 33!!!!!!!!! WALCOTT WAS IN HIS PRIME AGAINST MARCIANO.

a younger walcott would have done worse against marciano, because walcott fought at his best from years 33-38.

hopkins was in his prime at 38!!! so was walcott my freind !!!!!

marciano not at the level of shavers or foreman????? what am i hearing. shavers lost in his prime to bob stalling a club fighter with losing record. shavers also was knocked out in one round by quarry. shavers is a very hard hitter but not a great fighter.

marciano would knock out norton. norton couldnt deal with big punchers.

brit pack wrote

the greatest, muhammad ali. beat him past his prime but beat him nonetheless. just look at how close them fights were to decide how good norton is

he beat a past his prime ali. a younger prime ali has way to much speed for norton. ali would beat norton in a wide decision.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:46**

my revised list. still cant remeber number 7!

1 ali
2 louis
3 johnson
4 frazier
5 dempsey
6 remeber his face but the name is drawing a blank!
7 foreman
8 norton
9 marciano
10 holmes

you made me doubt norton, so ill have to watch all his fights again and all his peers before making sure he really was as good as i think he was. not sure now so he slips. i think he was that good coz look what he did to ali. what frazier couldnt and what foreman couldnt. and look where you put them. in any case i definitely think he is top ten material. i think he even won the last one. ali was beyond his prime by years but he was still great and norton showed alot of skills.

number 7 has become number 6, simply because i cant remeber his name! maybe i was thinking chalres but i cant be sure. ill have to watch it over and over again to make sure. im sure it was someone else i usually put there! give some names to me and it might come back

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:48**

walcott was a better boxer than norton IMO and would have beat norton. do u realize how good walcott was, he could knock u out with one punch and was a great stylist boxer. he had so many tricks up his sleeve. did u ever see walcott-marciano fight????
walcott was incosistent and he started off badly. he wasnt a good fighter in his twenties due to many reasons, but in walcotts peak, he was a fabulous fighter 33-38 years of age

one of walcotts best fights was against marciano, he was still in his prime when he fought rocky. he was coming off two wins ove ezzard charles.

u forget, marciano knocked out walcott in one round in rematch

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:51**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:wow ur reasoning is very flawed.

britpack wrote
walcott was old and a young one would have taken away that 0
walcott was still in his prime agaisnt marciano, he was coming off two wins over a prime ezzard charles. walcott fought one of his best fights against marciano, walcott didnt even become a contender until he was 33!!!!!!!!! WALCOTT WAS IN HIS PRIME AGAINST MARCIANO.

a younger walcott would have done worse against marciano, because walcott fought at his best from years 33-38.

hopkins was in his prime at 38!!! so was walcott my freind !!!!!

marciano not at the level of shavers or foreman????? what am i hearing. shavers lost in his prime to bob stalling a club fighter with losing record. shavers also was knocked out in one round by quarry. shavers is a very hard hitter but not a great fighter.

marciano would knock out norton. norton couldnt deal with big punchers.

brit pack wrote
the greatest, muhammad ali. beat him past his prime but beat him nonetheless. just look at how close them fights were to decide how good norton is
he beat a past his prime ali. a younger prime ali has way to much speed for norton. ali would beat norton in a wide decision.

walcott was a little bit past his prime as it showed in the rematch. he was ageing as hopkins has been too, and it showed against taylor! . i think walcott reached the point of taylor by then.

maricano was better than shavers, but i mean not at his level in terms of PUNCH! shavers was shit but they say he was the biggest puncher of all time. even holmes says that and he tasted tyson. he was a crap boxer but his power was mcuh more. thats why he rocked norton. i think norton beats marciano with skills. so do alot of others. yes i know he beat ali beyond his prime. i said that. a prime ali beats them all in my opinion. a prime ali is the best of all time ever p4p. better than robinson. but the ali norotn lost a close decision to still beat guys in their prime that have made your top ten. norton deserves top ten at the very least. he had skills. watch it and you will believe me.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:55**

britpack wrote

walcott was a little bit past his prime as it showed in the rematch. he was ageing as hopkins has been too, and it showed against taylor! . i think walcott reached the point of taylor by then

no listen, hopkins fought his peak fight against tito at 38! he was 40 when he fought taylor and showed signs of slipping

walcott was 38 against rocky and was coming off his two best wins of his career. walcott had not shown any signs of aging. walcott was in his prime in first marciano fight. he had not shown any signs of slipping

unlike hopkins, walcott didnt show isngs of aging. for christ sake he just knocked out prime ezzard charles before facing rocky. would u agree with me walcott was in his prime??

also, most boxing historians say one of walcotts best fights if not his best was against marciano.

- in rematch rocky knoced out walcott in 1 because walcott came out timid and was scared of getting caught by the big punch. also walcott could have got up, but miscounted the ref count and got up too late.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 01:59**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott was a better boxer than norton IMO and would have beat norton. do u realize how good walcott was, he could knock u out with one punch and was a great stylist boxer. he had so many tricks up his sleeve. did u ever see walcott-marciano fight????
walcott was incosistent and he started off badly. he wasnt a good fighter in his twenties due to many reasons, but in walcotts peak, he was a fabulous fighter 33-38 years of age

one of walcotts best fights was against marciano, he was still in his prime when he fought rocky. he was coming off two wins ove ezzard charles.

u forget, marciano knocked out walcott in one round in rematch

because he was old. thats wat i mean by walcott was an old man. he was past his prime physically by the time rocky got to him. he beat an old man and when he foguht marciano he was at the point of jermain taylor (in comparison to b-hop). i know how good he was. i have seen the tricks he had up his sleeve. and he taught rocky a good lesson. rocky hit the chin of an old man. no old guys have a chin. i think rocky gets beat by norton (maybe walcott does beats norton!) because he is lacking in skills. norotn couldnt handle a punch but might outskill him. anybody in the top 15 has a chance of beating rocky on points.

as for walcott beating charles. that wasnt a prime charles and he wasnt a real heavyweight! ive seen the walcott marciano fight manytimes and it doesnt convince me of rocky's abilities. all excpet for the punch! i believ in his punch or he wouldn even make the top 15. he would be like lopez! (HAHAHAHA) nah jus joking. nobody is that bad. i still think norton had skills because even though ali is beyond his prime he beats guys like frazier and foreman (in their primes!) but he nevr could figure out norton. he still had loadsa speed but couldnt do it easily. a prime ali(superman, IMO) is a different matter, but what he did against the still great ali has to get brownie points. if marciano doesnt get the suzy q (which wasnt as big as shavers IMO) i think he loses on points very easily to alot of top heavyweights

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:06**

u dont undestand man.

hopkins beat tito at 38 !!! that was his peak

walcott prime was like hopkins, in thirties.

walcott did beat a prime ezzard charles. charles was only 29 and now a fully fledged heavyweight who hadnt lossed in years and was enhoying a long reign. charles was still in his prime. though charles peak was light_h.

if walcott fought his best fight against rocky how is he past his prime???

brit realize this, guys like hopkins, archie moore, walcott all fight better when they were in their 30s. its a rare thing, but there are exceptions. they WERE LATE BLOOMERS. walcott fought better when he was 38 then when he was 28, its a rare thing but its true.

walcott was in his prime against marciano, just like hopkins was in his prime against tito. end of story

norton wouldnt last 5 rounds with rocky

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:06**

goodbye, im sorry but i have to go. one thing, check up lopez's record and get tapes of his opponents and profiles if you can. trust me he was the biggest fraud in the history of the sport. minimumweights are a real scandal! they make the current heavyweights look like the creme de la creme. a real joke and a real disappointment. you have to see how bad they are to believe it. especially lopez's career, who was the best of them but still a joke! it was good pissing you off. i had fun. but i hope you learnt soemthing, coz i know that im gunna have to read up on my heavyweights (not my cuppa tea except ali and dempsey). i suggest you read up on your minimumweights (A joke altogether), light welterweights (floyd mayweather 49, ahem!), and tito ,dela hoya in comparison to tszyu (the man they dodged!). takecare and goodnight/morning. have fun!

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:09**

ok i disagree, rocky outpointed a master boxer in charles over 15 rounds and if u watched charles-marciano I it was fought at one of the most gruelling fights i have ever seen. both showed incredible stamina and skills. charles displayed great boxing skills and alots of speed in early rounds and rocky demonstated sheer stamina and non stop effective aggresion and he landed more punches and the harder blows. the ref did not have to break up the fighters once.

marcianos aggresion and non stop punching is hard to outpoint. u cant outbox marciano when hes not giving u any room and is pounding away at u.
u make it sound like thats all marciano had was a punch that is not true my friend.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:15**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:u dont undestand man.

hopkins beat tito at 38 !!! that was his peak

walcott prime was like hopkins, in thirties.

walcott did beat a prime ezzard charles. charles was only 29 and now a fully fledged heavyweight who hadnt lossed in years and was enhoying a long reign. charles was still in his prime. though charles peak was light_h.

if walcott fought his best fight against rocky how is he past his prime???

brit realize this, guys like hopkins, archie moore, walcott all fight better when they were in their 30s. its a rare thing, but there are exceptions. they WERE LATE BLOOMERS. walcott fought better when he was 38 then when he was 28, its a rare thing but its true.

walcott was in his prime against marciano, just like hopkins was in his prime against tito. end of story

norton wouldnt last 5 rounds with rocky

i agree with you, but i still say they have the fragility of ageing in them. they are like a time bomb. an accident waiting to happen if you like. as for hopkins i dont really rate him coz he lost to the only two genuine middleweights he fought. tito was a blown up welterweight who never carried his big punch that far. dont get me wrong, hopkins is brill and unbelievable at his age, but he aint nothiung compared to the all time greats like monzon or even roy jones! his prime was late though. the trouble with late bloomers is that they are fragile, and that cant be denied. they usually are crafty like moore, walcott and hopkins but they are fragile. walcot was sliding before the marciano fight and i think ezzard charles was like roy at heavyweight. he wasnt fully fledged and why do you think roy moved back down? chalres was a small guy, and walcott was an ageing guy. i alos think hopkins peak was before, but it wasnt good enough for roy. people think his peak was 38 because he beat a household name(small guy though!). however you need to check out what he was doing before that. his peak was before. jus coz them guys werent famous, doesnt mean they werent better than tito AS A middleweight. at 34 i reckon hopkins owuld have beat tito in less. there are many other things an i wish i could sit here allday talking about htis but i have to go. ill be back to explain more later. in the meantime check out ricardo lopez and comeback and agree ith me that he was a fraud in terms of all time greats!

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:18**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ok i disagree, rocky outpointed a master boxer in charles over 15 rounds and if u watched charles-marciano I it was fought at one of the most gruelling fights i have ever seen. both showed incredible stamina and skills. charles displayed great boxing skills and alots of speed in early rounds and rocky demonstated sheer stamina and non stop effective aggresion and he landed more punches and the harder blows. the ref did not have to break up the fighters once.

marcianos aggresion and non stop punching is hard to outpoint. u cant outbox marciano when hes not giving u any room and is pounding away at u.
u make it sound like thats all marciano had was a punch that is not true my friend.

he had more and he could cut off the ring and was good in close. however i think he was one dimentional and if it wasnt for the suzy q, i wouldnt put him in the top 10. it is the suzy q that has given him his top 10 place make no mistake about it! on anybodies list that is. as for non stop punching and aggression, i think you are talking about jack dempsey! i also dont think charles was the same at heavyweight. he was the best light heavy of all time (yep rjj fans!) but not a natural heavy. he was brave to go that far. i think alot of fighters can outpoint marciano. even lennox lewis (who i dont like!) who has a glass jaw but would be prepared in this case. alot of people can win a decsion of marciano trust me. he is easy to outpoint if you avoid the suzy q. but its there! the suzy q is there and it gets him in the top 10. its all about the suzy q! trust me. without that we never would have given a shit about him

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:20**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:vagabundo,

tell me some of ur picks that u totally disagree with

None really, that's why I say it's a good list. There are a few that i'd move here or there but other than that it's pretty solid.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:21**

if u seen rocky marciano fight, then u would realize he threw non stop punches, with very effective aggresion as well as wearing his opponents down with body attack.

how else did marciano outpoint charles over 15 rounds???

not a lot of guys can outpoint a master boxer in charles.

marciano had a KO punch, but he had a lot more than that or else he wouldnt have gone 49-0 and beaten the likes of roland lastarza twice, ezzard charles twice, walcott twice, and archie moore.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:25**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:if u seen rocky marciano fight, then u would realize he threw non stop punches, with very effective aggresion as well as wearing his opponents down with body attack.

how else did marciano outpoint charles over 15 rounds???

not a lot of guys can outpoint a master boxer in charles.

marciano had a KO punch, but he had a lot more than that or else he wouldnt have gone 49-0 and beaten the likes of roland lastarza twice, ezzard charles twice, walcott twice, and archie moore.

he did. but not in terms of all time p4p. he wasnt like dempsey but was similar. he wouldnt be able to do it against guys who can stay outside. i think even rjj or toney would be able to keep marciano away. i also dont think that ezzard chalres was the same at heavyweight. wacth him and you will see. he isnt the same! marciano was great because of the suzy q, trust me. walcott exposed him and if it was a young guy (like rjj or norton!), it would have been a full 15.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 02:29**

now i really do have to go! i need to get my priorities right. it was really good chatting shit wi you guys but now its back to real life and really important stuff. ( i iwsh i knew it 4 hours a go). all i got to say is ricardo lopez i sdefinitely a fraud. you guys need to check that out seriously. watch his oppoentns and make not of the minimumweight division in general. see the farce behind the 52-0-1 that looks good (so does brian nielson). lopez shouldnt be on that list. just chekc himout and takecare. bye!

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 11:23**

Im surprised that you only have 1 active fighter on your list.

Posted: **19 Sep 2005, 18:11**

on the top 10 list?

Posted: **20 Sep 2005, 08:03**

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:1. sugar ray robinson
2. Henry Armtstrong
3. joe louis
4. Sam Langford
5. muhammad ali
6. harry greb
7. Ezzard Charles
8. willie pep
9. roberto duran
10. Joe Gans
11. Sugar Ray Leonard
12. sandy saddler
13. Joe Walcott "barbadoes"
14. Archie Moore
15. Jimmy Wilde
16. Benny Leonard
17. Barney Ross
18. Rocky Marciano
19. Bob fitzimmons
20. Julio Cesar Chavez
21. Mickey Walker
22. Jack Dempsey
23. Marvin Hagler
24. Salvado Sanchez
25. Roy Jones jr
26. Alexis Arguello
27. Jack Johnson
28. Carlos Monzon
29. Micheal Spinks
30. Larry Holmes
31. Pernell Whitaker
32. Terry Mcgovern
32. Gene Tunney
34. Wilfredo Gomez
35. Emile Griffith
36. Billy Conn
37. Lou Ambers
38. Kid Gavilan
39. Joe Frazier
40. Ed Jofre - the guy lost in his prime to harada twice and never beat a HOf, that is why i cant put him in my top 20 for those who are interested
41. Ruben Oliveres
42. Tony Canzoneri
43. Ike Williams
44. Jimmy Mclarnin
45. Stanley Ketchel
46. Bob Foster
47. Tommy Hearns
48. Floyd Mayweather jr **- still active
49. Evander Holyfield - only because he was the best cruiserweight of all time, cruiserweight counts
50. Carmen Basilio
51. Jose Napoles
52. Charley Burley
53. Tiger Flowers
54. Bernard Hopkins
55. George Foreman
56. Aaron Pryor
57. Jack Britton
58. Abe Atell
59. Tommy Loughran
60. Khasaoi Galaxy
61. Ricardo Lopez
62. Freddie Miller
63. Carlos Ortiz
64. Azumah Nelson
65. Dick Tiger
66. Carlos Zarate
67. Ted Kid Lewis
68. Mike Tyson
69. Fighting Harada
70. Sonny liston
71. Philadelphia Jack O brien
72 James Toney
73 Eusubio Pedroza
74 Mike Mccallum
75 Jersey Joe Walcott
76 Panama Al Brown
77 Marco Antonio barrera
78 eric morales
79 Gene Fullmer
80 Jake La Motta
81 Oscar De La hoya
82 Pancho villa
83 Kid Chocalate
84 Joe "old bones" Brown
85 Felix Trinidad
86 Sammy Serrano
87 Marcel Cerdan
88 Jeff Fenech
89 Lennox Lewis
90 Wilfredo Benitez
91 Vicente Saldivar
92 James Jeffries
93 Manuel Ortiz
94 Nino Benvenuti
95 Bob Montegmory
96 Beau Jack
97 Humberto Gonzalez
98 Flash Elorde
99 Kosta Tyzu
100 Harold Johnson

this list took me 3 hours to do, so i thought it over very hard. so take that into consideration before u bash some of my picks.

I do not on what do you based your list on. I also making a 100 greatest fighters list, and I know you had a lot of trouble putting them together. My list, with all th facts and research is taking me more than a year. I am not going to criticize nor disagree in some spots of some fighters that are placed.

But I would like to know something??? Why is Carlos Monzon listed at 28??? I believe he was the greatest middleweight ever if not the greatest and you got Salvador Sanchez, Alexis Arguello and Julio Cesar Chavez better than him??? And I can't believe that Jones was better than Whitaker when Whitaker was the best fighter of his generation??? I just want an explanation.

Well, everybody got their own way of ranking fighters. If I give my list, I probably be criticized on some spots too.

Posted: **20 Sep 2005, 08:51**

elmersalsa wrote:...Well, everybody got their own way of ranking fighters. If I give my list, I probably be criticized on some spots too.[/size]

Yes, you are correct. Your ratings will be crticized also.

BoxRec

My top 100 fighters of all time

Re: My top 100 fighters of all time

Re: My top 100 fighters of all time